John Kelly is boasting that he "stopped" Trump from doing things...

[Dana7360]

Because our laws.

Which one.

This federal law limits what US troops deployed at the border can do
PHOENIX — The more than 5,200 active-duty troops being sent by President Donald Trump to the U.S.-Mexico border will be limited in what they can do under a federal law that restricts the military from engaging in law enforcement on American soil.

That means the troops will not be allowed to detain immigrants, seize drugs from smugglers or have any direct involvement in stopping a migrant caravan that is still about 1,000 miles from the nearest border crossing.

They can stop invaders. Otherwise what good are they.

...they are NOT law enforcement, and can not do the duties of law enforcement.


Congress outlawed the practice of posse comitatus by enacting the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) (as 20 Stat. 152) as a rider to the Army Appropriation Act for 1880. The act stated: "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Congressional debates indicate that the PCA was intended to stop army troops from answering the call of a marshal to perform direct law enforcement duties and aid in execution of the law. Further legislative history indicates that the more immediate objective was to put an end to the use of federal troops to police elections in ex-Confederate states where civil power had been reestablished.

Significantly, President Hayes vetoed the act because it "makes a vital change in the election laws of the country, which is in no way connected to the use of the Army." Congress overrode the veto. Accordingly, the willful use of the army or air force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws is a felony, unless the use is expressly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress.

It isn't law enforcements to prevent an invasion through our border. It's an act of war. It's what our armed forces are supposed to do. Protect and defend from all enemies domestic and abroad.

You either don't know what the word invasion means or you're not dealing with reality.

For heaven's sake learn the meaning of words in the English language.

 

[Dana7360]

Bring 'em home put 'em on the borders.

Once agon you dredge up this juvenile argument. When are you going to grow up and realize that border enforcement is not a function of the modern US military?

Every other nation in the history of humanity has guarded its borders with its military. Why not ours?

Oh really? Ok, you made an assertion.....prove it now. Canada use their military at their border? the UK? Australia? New Zealand? Japan?

I have lived south of the Canadian border most of my life. I've been going up there since I was a kid.

I was just up there in November for a weekend photo trip with a friend.

In all the decades I've been crossing the border into Canada I've never, not once, seen any Canadian military at the border.

Ever.

 

[H B Lowrie]

Bring 'em home put 'em on the borders.

Once agon you dredge up this juvenile argument. When are you going to grow up and realize that border enforcement is not a function of the modern US military?

Every other nation in the history of humanity has guarded its borders with its military. Why not ours?

Oh really? Ok, you made an assertion.....prove it now. Canada use their military at their border? the UK? Australia? New Zealand? Japan?

I have lived south of the Canadian border most of my life. I've been going up there since I was a kid.

I was just up there in November for a weekend photo trip with a friend.

In all the decades I've been crossing the border into Canada I've never, not once, seen any Canadian military at the border.

Ever.

Well yeah, but look, that's a civil, free, open, non-hysterical society not based upon self-cannibalization, predatory competition and religious zealotry. Apples and oranges.

 

[Slyhunter]

Every other nation in the history of humanity has guarded its borders with its military. Why not ours?

Because our laws.

Which one.

This federal law limits what US troops deployed at the border can do
PHOENIX — The more than 5,200 active-duty troops being sent by President Donald Trump to the U.S.-Mexico border will be limited in what they can do under a federal law that restricts the military from engaging in law enforcement on American soil.

That means the troops will not be allowed to detain immigrants, seize drugs from smugglers or have any direct involvement in stopping a migrant caravan that is still about 1,000 miles from the nearest border crossing.

They can stop invaders. Otherwise what good are they.

You might want to incorrectly use the word invaders but our courts don't.

People asking for asylum or illegally crossing the border don't meet the definition of invaders.

Crossing the border isn't a felony. It's a misdemeanor no different from a parking ticket. That's not the definition of an invasion.

Finally learn about the Posse Comitatus Act. It's the law that applies here and the one that the judge is following.

It's an act of war.

 

[Slyhunter]

Which one.

This federal law limits what US troops deployed at the border can do
PHOENIX — The more than 5,200 active-duty troops being sent by President Donald Trump to the U.S.-Mexico border will be limited in what they can do under a federal law that restricts the military from engaging in law enforcement on American soil.

That means the troops will not be allowed to detain immigrants, seize drugs from smugglers or have any direct involvement in stopping a migrant caravan that is still about 1,000 miles from the nearest border crossing.

They can stop invaders. Otherwise what good are they.

...they are NOT law enforcement, and can not do the duties of law enforcement.


Congress outlawed the practice of posse comitatus by enacting the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) (as 20 Stat. 152) as a rider to the Army Appropriation Act for 1880. The act stated: "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Congressional debates indicate that the PCA was intended to stop army troops from answering the call of a marshal to perform direct law enforcement duties and aid in execution of the law. Further legislative history indicates that the more immediate objective was to put an end to the use of federal troops to police elections in ex-Confederate states where civil power had been reestablished.

Significantly, President Hayes vetoed the act because it "makes a vital change in the election laws of the country, which is in no way connected to the use of the Army." Congress overrode the veto. Accordingly, the willful use of the army or air force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws is a felony, unless the use is expressly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress.

It isn't law enforcements to prevent an invasion through our border. It's an act of war. It's what our armed forces are supposed to do. Protect and defend from all enemies domestic and abroad.

You either don't know what the word invasion means or you're not dealing with reality.

For heaven's sake learn the meaning of words in the English language.

15,000 people forcing their way cross our border is an invasion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Trump wanted to withdraw troops from South Korea and NATO and John Kelly supposedly stopped him.

Well, good thing this guy's leaving because I agree with Trump.

Our involvement in South Korea and NATO should have ended years ago when Communism fell in Russia and Eastern Europe.

Why are we protecting Europe from a Russian invasion that will never come?

Keep in mind that Russia has a GNP roughly the size of Denmark and can not afford a war in Europe.

Also keep in mind that South Korea is a modern industrial nation that is more than a match for a weakened Communist North Korea that can't even keep the lights on at night.

Trump should appoint people who support his agenda and do what he wants to do.

John F. Kelly says his tenure as Trump's chief of staff is best measured by what the president did not do

Trump is incompetent, reckless, and irresponsible – Kelly indeed kept Trump from doing all manner of stupid, ridiculous things.

 

[Slyhunter]

Trump wanted to withdraw troops from South Korea and NATO and John Kelly supposedly stopped him.

Well, good thing this guy's leaving because I agree with Trump.

Our involvement in South Korea and NATO should have ended years ago when Communism fell in Russia and Eastern Europe.

Why are we protecting Europe from a Russian invasion that will never come?

Keep in mind that Russia has a GNP roughly the size of Denmark and can not afford a war in Europe.

Also keep in mind that South Korea is a modern industrial nation that is more than a match for a weakened Communist North Korea that can't even keep the lights on at night.

Trump should appoint people who support his agenda and do what he wants to do.

John F. Kelly says his tenure as Trump's chief of staff is best measured by what the president did not do

Trump is incompetent, reckless, and irresponsible – Kelly indeed kept Trump from doing all manner of stupid, ridiculous things.

Trump is a genius.

 

[Erinwltr]

The generals, as you call them, are always going to push for more war because that's what generals do, it's in their self interest to have as much war as possible, in as many places as possible. If Presidents always listened to generals, we would be in war forever, and that's what's been happening for the last 17 years.

I understand why we invaded Afghanistan, we were pissed about 9/11, but in hindsight, we should have realized that no one ever wins in Afghanistan. It's called "the graveyard of Empires" for a reason. The following countries invaded Afghanistan and were defeated: ancient Greece, United Kingdom, USSR, and now USA.

I supported the invasion of Iraq because Saddam Hussein was a dangerous presence, unpredictable, having started two wars by invadining neighboring countries, and having used poison gas on the Kurds. He had to be dealt with, but it was appalling that the generals did not understand that a total destruction of Saddam's government and military would lead to rioting and civil war between the Shia and the Sunni.

Syria, I get we had to destroy ISIS because they are a genocidal group, but if Trump is right and ISIS is defeated, then the time is right to leavre Syria and let other countries deal with that endless civil war. Syria is not within our sphere of influence, never has been, and it is not worth even one American life to change that.

It's clear you know nothing about the military....never served, did you?

I did serve, so you can go fuck yourself.

No you didn't...you are fooling no one with your comments about generals wanting war.

I did but there's no way to prove it to you obviously. But since you choose to call me a liar, I am putting you on ignore.

Anyone who goes with that idiotic stereotype that generals want war never served a day in their life.....unless you count your video games and war movies......Stolen Valor, eh?

"I am putting you on ignore." Hissy fit, hissy fit, stomp, stomp! I'm taking my Lincoln Logs home!

 

[Dana7360]

This federal law limits what US troops deployed at the border can do
PHOENIX — The more than 5,200 active-duty troops being sent by President Donald Trump to the U.S.-Mexico border will be limited in what they can do under a federal law that restricts the military from engaging in law enforcement on American soil.

That means the troops will not be allowed to detain immigrants, seize drugs from smugglers or have any direct involvement in stopping a migrant caravan that is still about 1,000 miles from the nearest border crossing.

They can stop invaders. Otherwise what good are they.

...they are NOT law enforcement, and can not do the duties of law enforcement.


Congress outlawed the practice of posse comitatus by enacting the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) (as 20 Stat. 152) as a rider to the Army Appropriation Act for 1880. The act stated: "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Congressional debates indicate that the PCA was intended to stop army troops from answering the call of a marshal to perform direct law enforcement duties and aid in execution of the law. Further legislative history indicates that the more immediate objective was to put an end to the use of federal troops to police elections in ex-Confederate states where civil power had been reestablished.

Significantly, President Hayes vetoed the act because it "makes a vital change in the election laws of the country, which is in no way connected to the use of the Army." Congress overrode the veto. Accordingly, the willful use of the army or air force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws is a felony, unless the use is expressly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress.

It isn't law enforcements to prevent an invasion through our border. It's an act of war. It's what our armed forces are supposed to do. Protect and defend from all enemies domestic and abroad.

You either don't know what the word invasion means or you're not dealing with reality.

For heaven's sake learn the meaning of words in the English language.

15,000 people forcing their way cross our border is an invasion.

No it's not.

They have no weapons. They aren't attacking our nation nor are they trying to take over the White House and government.

Our courts and the dictionary agrees with me.

Stop lying.

 

[pismoe]

its an invasion , incursion , aggression of THIEVES and SQUATTERS Dana .

 

[Care4all]

Because our laws.

Which one.

This federal law limits what US troops deployed at the border can do
PHOENIX — The more than 5,200 active-duty troops being sent by President Donald Trump to the U.S.-Mexico border will be limited in what they can do under a federal law that restricts the military from engaging in law enforcement on American soil.

That means the troops will not be allowed to detain immigrants, seize drugs from smugglers or have any direct involvement in stopping a migrant caravan that is still about 1,000 miles from the nearest border crossing.

They can stop invaders. Otherwise what good are they.

You might want to incorrectly use the word invaders but our courts don't.

People asking for asylum or illegally crossing the border don't meet the definition of invaders.

Crossing the border isn't a felony. It's a misdemeanor no different from a parking ticket. That's not the definition of an invasion.

Finally learn about the Posse Comitatus Act. It's the law that applies here and the one that the judge is following.

It's an act of war.

NO! It is not, silly one! It's a misdemeanor not a felony, to cross illegally, (it used to be only a civil offense, like a parking ticket but a fairly recent law was passed to up it to a misdemeanor) and it is no crime at all for refugees to seek asylum, no matter how they cross the border.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

They can stop invaders. Otherwise what good are they.

...they are NOT law enforcement, and can not do the duties of law enforcement.


Congress outlawed the practice of posse comitatus by enacting the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) (as 20 Stat. 152) as a rider to the Army Appropriation Act for 1880. The act stated: "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Congressional debates indicate that the PCA was intended to stop army troops from answering the call of a marshal to perform direct law enforcement duties and aid in execution of the law. Further legislative history indicates that the more immediate objective was to put an end to the use of federal troops to police elections in ex-Confederate states where civil power had been reestablished.

Significantly, President Hayes vetoed the act because it "makes a vital change in the election laws of the country, which is in no way connected to the use of the Army." Congress overrode the veto. Accordingly, the willful use of the army or air force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws is a felony, unless the use is expressly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress.

It isn't law enforcements to prevent an invasion through our border. It's an act of war. It's what our armed forces are supposed to do. Protect and defend from all enemies domestic and abroad.

You either don't know what the word invasion means or you're not dealing with reality.

For heaven's sake learn the meaning of words in the English language.

15,000 people forcing their way cross our border is an invasion.

No it's not.

They have no weapons. They aren't attacking our nation nor are they trying to take over the White House and government.

Our courts and the dictionary agrees with me.

Stop lying.

Look up "invasive species". They have no weapons, don't attack our nation, or take over the White House and government, but they cause all kinds of damage, just like illegals do!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Bring 'em home put 'em on the borders.

Once agon you dredge up this juvenile argument. When are you going to grow up and realize that border enforcement is not a function of the modern US military?

Every other nation in the history of humanity has guarded its borders with its military. Why not ours?

Oh really? Ok, you made an assertion.....prove it now. Canada use their military at their border? the UK? Australia? New Zealand? Japan?

I have lived south of the Canadian border most of my life. I've been going up there since I was a kid.

I was just up there in November for a weekend photo trip with a friend.

In all the decades I've been crossing the border into Canada I've never, not once, seen any Canadian military at the border.

Ever.

Who in their right mind would want to invade Canada?

Besides, their entire military would have a hard time protecting more than a few miles of border.

 

[Care4all]

...they are NOT law enforcement, and can not do the duties of law enforcement.


Congress outlawed the practice of posse comitatus by enacting the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) (as 20 Stat. 152) as a rider to the Army Appropriation Act for 1880. The act stated: "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Congressional debates indicate that the PCA was intended to stop army troops from answering the call of a marshal to perform direct law enforcement duties and aid in execution of the law. Further legislative history indicates that the more immediate objective was to put an end to the use of federal troops to police elections in ex-Confederate states where civil power had been reestablished.

Significantly, President Hayes vetoed the act because it "makes a vital change in the election laws of the country, which is in no way connected to the use of the Army." Congress overrode the veto. Accordingly, the willful use of the army or air force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws is a felony, unless the use is expressly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress.

It isn't law enforcements to prevent an invasion through our border. It's an act of war. It's what our armed forces are supposed to do. Protect and defend from all enemies domestic and abroad.

You either don't know what the word invasion means or you're not dealing with reality.

For heaven's sake learn the meaning of words in the English language.

15,000 people forcing their way cross our border is an invasion.

No it's not.

They have no weapons. They aren't attacking our nation nor are they trying to take over the White House and government.

Our courts and the dictionary agrees with me.

Stop lying.

Look up "invasive species". They have no weapons, don't attack our nation, or take over the White House and government, but they cause all kinds of damage, just like illegals do!

Like the Russian interference and attack on our election process???

 

[Ambivalent1]

Which one.

This federal law limits what US troops deployed at the border can do
PHOENIX — The more than 5,200 active-duty troops being sent by President Donald Trump to the U.S.-Mexico border will be limited in what they can do under a federal law that restricts the military from engaging in law enforcement on American soil.

That means the troops will not be allowed to detain immigrants, seize drugs from smugglers or have any direct involvement in stopping a migrant caravan that is still about 1,000 miles from the nearest border crossing.

They can stop invaders. Otherwise what good are they.

You might want to incorrectly use the word invaders but our courts don't.

People asking for asylum or illegally crossing the border don't meet the definition of invaders.

Crossing the border isn't a felony. It's a misdemeanor no different from a parking ticket. That's not the definition of an invasion.

Finally learn about the Posse Comitatus Act. It's the law that applies here and the one that the judge is following.

It's an act of war.

NO! It is not, silly one! It's a misdemeanor not a felony, to cross illegally, (it used to be only a civil offense, like a parking ticket but a fairly recent law was passed to up it to a misdemeanor) and it is no crime at all for refugees to seek asylum, no matter how they cross the border.

Yet the law demands they PROVE they were in danger....how do they do that? Is it true just because they SAY it's true?

 

[Care4all]

This federal law limits what US troops deployed at the border can do
PHOENIX — The more than 5,200 active-duty troops being sent by President Donald Trump to the U.S.-Mexico border will be limited in what they can do under a federal law that restricts the military from engaging in law enforcement on American soil.

That means the troops will not be allowed to detain immigrants, seize drugs from smugglers or have any direct involvement in stopping a migrant caravan that is still about 1,000 miles from the nearest border crossing.

They can stop invaders. Otherwise what good are they.

You might want to incorrectly use the word invaders but our courts don't.

People asking for asylum or illegally crossing the border don't meet the definition of invaders.

Crossing the border isn't a felony. It's a misdemeanor no different from a parking ticket. That's not the definition of an invasion.

Finally learn about the Posse Comitatus Act. It's the law that applies here and the one that the judge is following.

It's an act of war.

NO! It is not, silly one! It's a misdemeanor not a felony, to cross illegally, (it used to be only a civil offense, like a parking ticket but a fairly recent law was passed to up it to a misdemeanor) and it is no crime at all for refugees to seek asylum, no matter how they cross the border.

Yet the law demands they PROVE they were in danger....how do they do that? Is it true just because they SAY it's true?

That is a good question, of which I do not know the answer....

but, certainly, the immigration judges of whom they have to go before for their asylum quest, knows.

Over 90% are rejected now, by the judges in these courts.... (which actually seems very high to me), so they must have some sort of check list for the criteria to be accepted?

 

[Ambivalent1]

They can stop invaders. Otherwise what good are they.

You might want to incorrectly use the word invaders but our courts don't.

People asking for asylum or illegally crossing the border don't meet the definition of invaders.

Crossing the border isn't a felony. It's a misdemeanor no different from a parking ticket. That's not the definition of an invasion.

Finally learn about the Posse Comitatus Act. It's the law that applies here and the one that the judge is following.

It's an act of war.

NO! It is not, silly one! It's a misdemeanor not a felony, to cross illegally, (it used to be only a civil offense, like a parking ticket but a fairly recent law was passed to up it to a misdemeanor) and it is no crime at all for refugees to seek asylum, no matter how they cross the border.

Yet the law demands they PROVE they were in danger....how do they do that? Is it true just because they SAY it's true?

That is a good question, of which I do not know the answer....

but, certainly, the immigration judges of whom they have to go before for their asylum quest, knows.

Over 90% are rejected now, by the judges in these courts.... (which actually seems very high to me), so they must have some sort of check list for the criteria to be accepted?

Thank you for being candid.

 

[Care4all]

You might want to incorrectly use the word invaders but our courts don't.

People asking for asylum or illegally crossing the border don't meet the definition of invaders.

Crossing the border isn't a felony. It's a misdemeanor no different from a parking ticket. That's not the definition of an invasion.

Finally learn about the Posse Comitatus Act. It's the law that applies here and the one that the judge is following.

It's an act of war.

NO! It is not, silly one! It's a misdemeanor not a felony, to cross illegally, (it used to be only a civil offense, like a parking ticket but a fairly recent law was passed to up it to a misdemeanor) and it is no crime at all for refugees to seek asylum, no matter how they cross the border.

Yet the law demands they PROVE they were in danger....how do they do that? Is it true just because they SAY it's true?

That is a good question, of which I do not know the answer....

but, certainly, the immigration judges of whom they have to go before for their asylum quest, knows.

Over 90% are rejected now, by the judges in these courts.... (which actually seems very high to me), so they must have some sort of check list for the criteria to be accepted?

Thank you for being candid.

I was thinking it could be a possibility, that they probably do not let the public know all of the criteria and mannerisms they may look for or need, to give asylum, because then all those seeking asylum would or could manufacture things to meet those criteria??? Kind of like memorizing the test answers... before the test.

But I really don't know.... just guessing at this point,

but I will try to research it and find out.

 

[Ambivalent1]

It's an act of war.

NO! It is not, silly one! It's a misdemeanor not a felony, to cross illegally, (it used to be only a civil offense, like a parking ticket but a fairly recent law was passed to up it to a misdemeanor) and it is no crime at all for refugees to seek asylum, no matter how they cross the border.

Yet the law demands they PROVE they were in danger....how do they do that? Is it true just because they SAY it's true?

That is a good question, of which I do not know the answer....

but, certainly, the immigration judges of whom they have to go before for their asylum quest, knows.

Over 90% are rejected now, by the judges in these courts.... (which actually seems very high to me), so they must have some sort of check list for the criteria to be accepted?

Thank you for being candid.

I was thinking it could be a possibility, that they probably do not let the public know all of the criteria and mannerisms they may look for or need, to give asylum, because then all those seeking asylum would or could manufacture things to meet those criteria??? Kind of like memorizing the test answers...

But I really don't know.... just guessing at this point,

but I will try to research it and find out.

I really don't know either, just random musings.

 

[bodecea]

Bring 'em home put 'em on the borders.

Once agon you dredge up this juvenile argument. When are you going to grow up and realize that border enforcement is not a function of the modern US military?

Every other nation in the history of humanity has guarded its borders with its military. Why not ours?

Oh really? Ok, you made an assertion.....prove it now. Canada use their military at their border? the UK? Australia? New Zealand? Japan?

I have lived south of the Canadian border most of my life. I've been going up there since I was a kid.

I was just up there in November for a weekend photo trip with a friend.

In all the decades I've been crossing the border into Canada I've never, not once, seen any Canadian military at the border.

Ever.

Of course not....that poster is not known for having the truth on his side when he makes posts.